Behavioral Counseling Research and Evidence-Based Practice Recommendations: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Perspectives

Curry, Susan J.; Grossman, David C.; Whitlock, Evelyn P; Cantu, Adelita G.

doi:10.7326/m13-2128

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The purpose of this report was to provide a rationale and description of the CHOICE intervention and trial as recommended by experts [24]. The CHOICE intervention was designed to improve outcomes of primary care patients at high risk for AUDs by offering patient-centered chronic care management using MI skills and shared decision-making over 12 months.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding the implications of their varying results requires a detailed knowledge of the interventions, populations studied, and trial designs. Unfortunately, all too often, neither is adequately characterized in relatively brief reports in medical journals [24]. As a result, experts have recommended several frameworks to improve reporting and interpretation of the literature on behavioral interventions that can be offered in primary care [24, 25, 121, 122].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, all too often, neither is adequately characterized in relatively brief reports in medical journals [24]. As a result, experts have recommended several frameworks to improve reporting and interpretation of the literature on behavioral interventions that can be offered in primary care [24, 25, 121, 122]. One recommendation is that a checklist, the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), be used to ensure adequate description of behavioral interventions and the design of trials conducted in primary care [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, it summarizes the conceptual and scientific foundations of the CHOICE model of patient-centered care for AUDs. Second, it describes the design of the CHOICE trial and intervention, including all elements needed for replication of the intervention and comparison to other primary care counseling interventions for AUDs, as advocated by experts [24, 25]. Finally, it reports results of recruitment (completed October 2014) and patient-reported characteristics of the enrolled sample at baseline.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Patient-centered primary care for adults at high risk for AUDs: the Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial

Bradley

Ludman

Chavez

et al. 2017

Addict Sci Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMost patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) never receive alcohol treatment, and experts have recommended management of AUDs in primary care. The Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial was a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of a novel intervention for primary care patients at high risk for AUDs. This report describes the conceptual and scientific foundation of the CHOICE model of care, critical elements of the CHOICE trial design consistent with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), results of recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the enrolled sample.Methods The CHOICE intervention is a multi-contact, extended counseling intervention, based on the Chronic Care Model, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and evidence-based options for managing AUDs, designed to be practical in primary care. Outpatients who received care at 3 Veterans Affairs primary care sites in the Pacific Northwest and reported frequent heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day for women; ≥5 for men) were recruited (2011–2014) into a trial in which half of the participants would be offered additional alcohol-related care from a nurse. CHOICE nurses offered 12 months of patient-centered care, including proactive outreach and engagement, repeated brief motivational interventions, monitoring with and without alcohol biomarkers, medications for AUDs, and/or specialty alcohol treatment as appropriate and per patient preference. A CHOICE nurse practitioner was available to prescribe medications for AUDs.ResultsA total of 304 patients consented to participate in the CHOICE trial. Among consenting participants, 90% were men, the mean age was 51 (range 22–75), and most met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse (14%) or dependence (59%). Many participants also screened positive for tobacco use (44%), depression (45%), anxiety disorders (30-41%) and non-tobacco drug use disorders (19%). At baseline, participants had a median AUDIT score of 18 [Interquartile range (IQR) 14–24] and a median readiness to change drinking score of 5 (IQR 2.75–6.25) on a 1–10 Likert scale.ConclusionThe CHOICE trial tested a patient-centered intervention for AUDs and recruited primary care patients at high risk for AUDs, with a spectrum of severity, co-morbidity, and readiness to change drinking. Trial registration The trial is registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01400581).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13722-017-0080-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patient-centered primary care for adults at high risk for AUDs: the Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial

Bradley

Ludman

Chavez

et al. 2017

Addict Sci Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No entanto estes critérios devem ser utilizados também quando se pretende afirmar a eficiência e eficácia em intervenções não farmacológicas (Boutron, et al, 2008). Assim, também os estudos sobre a intervenção psicológica deverão seguir estas linhas orientadoras, seja quando se estudam procedimentos de intervenção em contexto de tratamento, seja na prevenção primária ou de promoção da saúde (Curry, Grossman, Whitlock, & Cantu, 2014).…”

Section: Tipos De Revisãounclassified

Research Review and Scientific Evidence

Pais-Ribeiro¹

2014

Psic., Saúde & Doenças

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

_________________________________________________________________ RESUMO-Atualmente a produção científica cresceu de modo muito significativo em todos os campos da ciência. A identificação de evidência científica, seja para a prática, seja para a investigação, depara-se com esta multiplicação de conhecimento que tem que ultrapassar. Um modo de enfrentar tal profusão de conhecimento é fazer revisões de investigação. O presente texto expõe e discute os principais métodos utilizados na revisão de investigação, discutindo as suas vantagens e desvantagens, principalmente para a área da psicologia. Revisão sistemática, meta análise, narrativa, integrativa, síntese, scoping, são alguns dos métodos utilizados para a revisão e exposição de evidência científica. Da revisão sistemática com ou sem meta análise, aos métodos de revisão mais qualitativos ou mais extensos, todos são úteis se responderem à questão de investigação que lhes deram origem. A escolha da língua de publicação e do tipo de literatura revisto é outro aspeto a considerar. Há hoje uma enorme produção de "literatura cinzenta" publicada por agências científicas, governamentais, ou outras publicações que apresentam informação e dados importantes para a investigação e a prática, e que não podem ser ignorados. Palavras-chave -evidência científica; revisão de investigação; métodos de revisão de investigação. ______________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH REVIEW AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCEABSTRACT-Currently the scientific production increased very significantly in all fields of science. The identification of scientific evidence, for practice, or for research, is faced with the proliferation of knowledge that must be overcome. One way to cope with such a profusion of knowledge is research review. This paper presents and discusses the main methods used in the review of research, discussing their advantages and disadvantages, especially in the area of psychology. Systematic review, meta-analysis, narrative, integrative, synthesis, scoping, are some of the methods used to review and display evidence based science. Systematic review with or without meta-analysis, methods of more qualitative or more extensive review, all are useful if they respond to the research question that initiate them. The choice of language of publication and the type of literature reviewed is another aspect to consider. Today there are a huge production of gray literature published by scientific organizations, government agencies, or others that present important data and information for research and practice, that can't be ignored.

show abstract

The MSM (Non)Identity: Toward Understanding Sexual Behavior and Identity in Health Research and Practice with Straight Men Under the Umbrella

Zeglin

2019

Sex Res Soc Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral Counseling Research and Evidence-Based Practice Recommendations: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Perspectives

Cited by 28 publications

References 29 publications

Patient-centered primary care for adults at high risk for AUDs: the Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial

Patient-centered primary care for adults at high risk for AUDs: the Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial

Research Review and Scientific Evidence

The MSM (Non)Identity: Toward Understanding Sexual Behavior and Identity in Health Research and Practice with Straight Men Under the Umbrella

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About